Abstract

Background

The Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) has achieved a lot with limited resources
in producing high quality systematic reviews to assist clinicians in evidence-based
decision-making. A formal assessment of published CNRG systematic reviews has not
been undertaken; we sought to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of
systematic reviews (both methodologic and reporting quality) published in CNRG.

Methods

We selected a random sample of published CNRG systematic reviews. Items of the QUOROM
statement were utilized to assess quality of reporting, while items and total scores
of the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) were used to
assess methodologic quality. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed
quality. A Student t-test was used to compare quality scores pre- and post-publication
of the QUOROM statement.

Results

Sixty-one systematic reviews were assessed. Overall, the included reviews had good
quality with minor flaws based on OQAQ total scores (mean, 4.5 [0.9]; 95% CI, 4.27–4.77).
However, room for improvement was noted in some areas, such as the title, abstract
reporting, a priori plan for heterogeneity assessment and how to handle heterogeneity in case it exists,
and assessment of publication bias. In addition, reporting of agreement among reviewers,
documentation of trials flow, and discussion of possible biases were addressed in
the review process. Reviews published post the QUOROM statement had a significantly
higher quality scores.

Conclusion

The systematic reviews published in the CNRG are generally of good quality with minor
flaws. However, efforts should be made to improve the quality of reports. Readers
must continue to assess the quality of published reports on an individual basis prior
to implementing the recommendations.